SIR not 'manifestly arbitrary', Election Commission tells Supreme Court

New Delhi: Defending the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being carried out by it across states, the Election Commission of India (ECI) told the Supreme Court on Thursday that SIR "cannot be castigated as manifestly arbitrary".

The counsel for the poll body argued that to "say that we (ECI) have ignored the rules (in conducting SIR) is incorrect". The ECI counsel demanded that the instant clutch of pleas challenging the constitutionality of SIR ought to be dismissed with heavy costs. "Not a single voter has filed a writ or appeal (against his/her) exclusion from the electoral rolls", the ECI counsel submitted.

He said the petitioners in the case are merely seeking a "roving and fishing inquiry" into SIR which should not be permitted by the court. "SIR cannot be castigated as manifestly arbitrary," he added.


Taking a dig at the petitioners, the ECI counsel submitted that the petitioners want "ECI to follow Europe". The submission was made by the ECI counsel in reference to one of the petitioners demanding use of ballot papers instead of EVMs. The ECI counsel defended the eleven documents mentioned by ECI in its list of admissible documents that can be submitted along with the applications seeking inclusion in the draft roll.

"For good reasons, authorities restricted it to eleven documents," the ECI counsel argued.

On Wednesday, a division bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi had questioned whether the ECI's power to conduct SIR can be considered untrammelled and beyond judicial review.

The bench, on Wednesday, had verbally observed that the ECI cannot have untrammelled and unregulated powers under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which empowers the Commission to carry out an intensive revision "in such manner as it may think fit". The court opined that such a 'manner' has to be within the constitutional framework and principles of natural justice.

Speaking for the bench, Justice Bagchi had asked whether the ECI had the power to deviate from the pre-existing rules on revision of electoral rolls, especially Form 6 under Rule 13 of Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, which details the process for raising objections and claims. And could the ECI stipulate its own set of documents which it allows for SIR, beyond those listed in Form 6?

Earlier this month, the bench had lamented the inactive role played by political parties in not providing solutions for active participation of voters in the voting process. The bench, at a previous hearing last week, had verbally remarked that it was "high time" that political parties "persuade, convince and encourage people to exercise their right to vote".